Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Dakshkumar Hasmukhbhai Desai, filed a civil revision application under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, challenging an order dated 28.04.2025 passed by the Principal District Judge, Navsari, in Regular Civil Appeal (D.C.) No.107 of 2023. The impugned order rejected the applicant's application (Exhibit 13) seeking extension of time to deposit Rs.20,000/- as costs, which was imposed as a condition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The background facts are that the applicant had filed Regular Civil Suit No.54 of 2013 seeking declaration and injunction regarding suit property being Shado No.C/1/208 in GIDC, Navsari, claiming to be a tenant under a rent agreement with deceased opponent No.2 since 2007. The suit was rejected by the trial court on 01.11.2023. The applicant then filed an appeal with a delay condonation application. The appellate court allowed the condonation application on condition that the applicant deposit Rs.10,000/- to the Legal Services Authority and Rs.10,000/- to the opponents, totaling Rs.20,000/-, within a specified time. The applicant failed to deposit the amount and filed Exhibit 13 seeking extension of time. The appellate court rejected that application. In the revision, the applicant argued that the appellate court should have granted extension as the delay was not intentional. The respondent opposed, contending that the order was discretionary and not revisable. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the order condoning delay was conditional and the condition was not fulfilled; the refusal to extend time was a discretionary order that did not decide any substantive right. The court found no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order and dismissed the revision application. The court also noted that the appeal itself would stand dismissed due to non-compliance with the condition. The judgment was delivered by Justice Devan M. Desai on 13.03.2026.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Condonation of Delay - Conditional Order - Section 29(2) Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The appellate court allowed the application for condonation of delay subject to deposit of Rs.20,000/- as costs. The applicant failed to deposit the amount within the stipulated time and sought extension under Exhibit 13. The appellate court rejected the extension. The High Court held that the order condoning delay was conditional and the condition was not fulfilled; the appellate court's refusal to extend time was a discretionary order and not amenable to revision under Section 29(2) as it did not decide any substantive right. The revision was dismissed. (Paras 6-7) B) Civil Procedure - Revision - Scope of Section 29(2) - Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The revisional jurisdiction under Section 29(2) is limited to examining the legality and propriety of orders passed under the Act. An order refusing to extend time for compliance of a conditional order is an interlocutory order and does not finally determine the rights of parties. Hence, no interference is warranted. (Para 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court erred in rejecting the applicant's application under Exhibit 13 for extension of time to deposit the costs of Rs.20,000/- imposed as a condition for condonation of delay, and whether the High Court should interfere under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the civil revision application, holding that the impugned order was a discretionary order and did not suffer from any illegality or impropriety. The court found no reason to interfere under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.
Law Points
- Section 29(2) of Bombay Rents
- Hotels and Lodging House Rates Control Act
- 1947
- Condonation of delay
- Conditional order
- Extension of time
- Deposit of costs
- Discretion of court
- Finality of order
